JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

Yes it is.

At least, in my nearly 49 years following this case, I've never known them to perform any experiments to prove their assertions. Neither have they ever put their own scenario on the table. They are satisfied to just criticize.

Robert, can you cite any experiments by critics to prove the correctness of their assertions?

Hank

I have conducted by own experiment in attempting to prove or disprove the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in backyard photo 133B, where the rifle is at 11 o'clock and proven the shadow to be a fraud. Jack White has conducted numerous experiments on the backyard photo anomalies as has John Costella and others. And that is what Science is all about -- Replication. If you cannot replicate an observation then that observation is not worthy of belief. On the other hand the so-called panel of photo "experts" on the HSCA conducted no experiments at all, and thus replicated nothing.

 

[Southwind17]

I have conducted by own experiment in attempting to prove or disprove the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in backyard photo 133B, where the rifle is at 11 o'clock and proven the shadow to be a fraud. Jack White has conducted numerous experiments on the backyard photo anomalies as has John Costella and others. And that is what Science is all about -- Replication. If you cannot replicate an observation then that observation is not worthy of belief. On the other hand the so-called panel of photo "experts" on the HSCA conducted no experiments at all, and thus replicated nothing.

Jack White? Are you serious, Robert?!

I hope at least you applied some solid photgrammetry principles. Did you, Robert? Would you be so kind as to post your experiment details, and explain how they prove the photo to be fraudulent?

BTW - science isn't all about replication. There are many other factors that determine good science.

 

[Robert Prey]

How do I nominate this for a Stundie?

Here's the logic Robert is arguing is perfectly valid:




Aside to Robert: There's a very big IF in your argument you appear to be ignoring:

...If the film can be shown without question to have been altered...

You see, the film must be shown to be altered first as you yourself admit.

And Zavada's study does an excellent job of eliminating that possibility as Horne above admits ("All of the external indicators on the film are indeed consistent with authenticity -- like the date code of when the film came out of the factory, the type of film used, and the processing markings from the lab in Dallas...").

Horne ignores all that, and so do you, simply because you both want the Z-film to be altered, because otherwise it pretty effectively destroys your arguments for conspiracy. So Horne argues none of that matters, because we know the film is altered, so of course all that shows is the conspirators were really good at altering stuff.

That sir, is pretty classic circular reasoning.

If none of that matters, why did the AARB commission the study?

Why did they hire the best 8mm expert they could find on this planet to do the study?

Or is that too many questions for you to answer?

Yes. Too many. There are several anomalies the Z film. I cited one being the one sixth of a second blood and tissue spray. You ignored it.

 

[Robert Prey]

Bizarre. He was there, it's not hearsay. It's not speculation. And it's not hearsay speculation either. He's testifying to what he saw. He saw them drive off before the assassination. He noted they were long gone before the assassination and weren't in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.

Here's a fuller version of his statement, which I posted earlier. Also as I pointed out earlier, Mark Lane, the source you cited for Mercer's story, didn't mention any of this in his aptly-entitled book that describes his decision-making process, RUSH TO JUDGMENT:

The following investigation was conducted by SA's HENRY J. OLIVER and LOUIS M. KELLEY on December 9, 1963:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department, Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade, the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck, and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He stated these persons were under observation all during the period they were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of President KENNEDY.

Please present some evidence they were involved. Otherwise you got a stalled truck that was gone before the assassination, and a big heap of speculation that this is somehow connected to the assassination of the President.

It's not.

Hank

No. The only thing I challenged you to do is to disprove Mercer's account. You have not done that.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, they didn't call him in as an expert photographic witness.

Please cite your PRIMARY (not secondary) source of this.

They called him because he had been a leading critic of the backyard photographs for ten years and they wanted to find out what he claimed to have discovered that led him to conclude the backyard photos were fakes.

Robert Blakey gave a lead-in to Jack White's testimony that starts here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0162a.htm

It concerns the known history of the backyard photos, and a brief history of the criticism of the backyard photos. Among others, he mentions the criticism of Mark Lane and Sylvia Meagher in that introduction. White wasn't called as an expert photographic witness, but as one of the leading critics of the backyard photos.

Blakey concludes with this, before the House Committee heard White's testimony:

The 1978 BBC television documentary entitled "The Assassination of President Kennedy " ' ` What Do We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then" includes an interview with British forensic photography expert, Malcolm Thomson. At the request of the British Broadcasting Corp., Mr. Thomson examined copies of two of the backyard photographs . He found that they were fakes.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to show the BBC interview to illustrate how concern over the photographs has drawn public attention.
Chairman STOKES. You may proceed.
Mr. BLAKEY. Could the lights be turned down please?
[The documentary was shown.]
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, the committee has also asked Mr. Jack D. White to appear as a witness today. Mr. White has studied the backyard photographs for over 10 years.
Mr. White received a B.A. in journalism major, history minor from the Texas Christian University in 1949. Currently, he is vice president of Witherspoon and Associates, Ft. Worth's largest advertising and public relations firm. Mr. White has served with Witherspoon in various capacities for over 25 years. He has done extensive work in all areas of reproduction,
including photographic, mechanical, printing, and the graphic arts.
Mr. White has lectured in the United States, widely on the subject of the backyard photographs .
Mr. Chairman, I would note that Mr. White's testimony today will be split into two parts: The first dealing with the photographs, and the second in relation to the rifle. But it would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. White to testify on the backyard photographs.
Chairman Stokes. The Committee calls Mr. White.

Here's White's testimony (previously cited).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol2/html/HSCA_Vol2_0163b.htm

But at no time is Jack White referred to as an expert photographic witness. He was called as a leading critic of the backyard photos, and the two are NOT synonymous.

Jack White being a critic doesn't give him expertise, Robert.

We see that every day with your posts, as well.

Hank

White obviously knew more about those photos than anyone on that panel. Can you cite any example of where the committee attempted to replicate a cited anomaly????

 

[Robert Prey]

Apropos of the image on the left, one conspiracy theorist (Ralph Cinque) is arguing the photograph by James Altgens shows Oswald in the doorway because Oswald wore a V-neck t-shirt, whereas Billy Lovelady wore a round-neck T-shirt. It has been pointed out to him that what he's seeing is the shadow of the head on the T-shirt, making it appear to be V-necked, but of course that hasn't dissuaded him any.

http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dc...ic&forum=3&topic_id=93960&mesg_id=93960&page=

Here's the full Altgens photograph.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens.jpg

The question of who is in the doorway was raised within the first month of the assassination.
In blowups of the image, it looks like Oswald.
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/lovelady/index.html

The Warren Commission established it was Billy Lovelady.
The HSCA re-examined the evidence in 1978 and concluded it was Billy Lovelady.
Billy Lovelady said it was Billy Lovelady.
Even Oswald admitted it wasn't him in the photo.*

Even that doesn't close the case for some conspiracy theorists like Ralph Cinque above.

Robert, just curious: Do you think it is Oswald in the doorway, and do you think Oswald was lying about his whereabouts at the time of the assassination?

____________

* Oswald's admission is part of the famous "I'm just a patsy" exchange with reporters, but is seldom quoted by conspiracy theorists.

ANNOUNCER: Dallas Police headquarters, November 22nd, 1963.
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I don't know what this is all about.
1st REPORTER: Did you kill the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No, sir, I didn't. People keep-- [crosstalk] Sir?

1st REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: I work in that building.
1st REPORTER: Were you in the building at the time?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir.

2nd REPORTER: Back up, man!
3rd REPORTER: Come on, man!
4th REPORTER: Did you shoot the President?
LEE HARVEY OSWALD: No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1205.html

And so, your point is????

 

[Robert Prey]

So you really have no comprehension how light and shadow can affect the appearance of a face.

Here's quick test that replicates the effect in the photos:

[qimg]http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3275/shadow2j.png[/qimg][qimg]http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3751/shadow1h.png[/qimg]

The only difference in the two is that on the right the lighting is aimed straight at the face, as with a flash or studio light, and on the left it's angled down like sunlight. See Robert, no fakery or editing required, just some basic physics.

Your top example shows shadow in the chin itself. There is no shadow on Oswald's chin, but on his neck in BY photo 133A.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes. Too many. There are several anomalies the Z film. I cited one being the one sixth of a second blood and tissue spray. You ignored it.

Your interpretation of how long blood should be visible for is not evidence

Show us where we can see paint on the frame, or artefacts of tampering. Until then we have no reason to assume alterations were made.

 

[Robert Prey]

Expert Non-Answers

Still waiting for an answer to the question:

What is an "expert"????

None of the "experts"on this board seem to know what one is, though quick to point out who is, and who is not an "expert."

 

[jargon buster]

What is an "expert"????

We can all use this definition from now on.

Expert.
A person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area.

 

[Robert Prey]

We can all use this definition from now on.

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

 

[jargon buster]

Having studied the backyard photos myself Im still at a loss as to where the grassy knoll shooter is, is he behind Oswald or is it the person taking the photo?

PS feel free to ignore this post Robert.

 

[Southwind17]

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

I'm inclined to concur with jb's suggestion. Regardless, one can quickly point out, validly, that Jack White is certainly not an expert by any reasonable definition of the word.

What is it, Robert, about White's testimony that leads you to believe that he is an expert? Is it your definition of 'expert', I wonder, which seemingly reads something like: 'A person who has a purported authoritative knowledge or skill in a particular area but in reality has a keen but amateurish, naive interest.'

What authoritative knowledge and/or skill do you consider White demonstrated in his testimony?

 

[Southwind17]

Your top example shows shadow in the chin itself. There is no shadow on Oswald's chin, but on his neck in BY photo 133A.

Robert, you're splitting hairs now in a desperate attempt to avoid severe embarrassment. The profile of most chins, including Oswald's, as demonstrated by the mug shots, and as you well know, transfers from essentially vertical to essentially horizontal. Hence the shadow line from an elevated light source, (the sun, in the case of the Oswald photo) occurs at a point somewhere before essentially true horizontal, i.e. well in advance of the neck, namely still on the chin. Get it? Or would a simple line diagram help?

 

[HSienzant]

No. The only thing I challenged you to do is to disprove Mercer's account. You have not done that.

lol. Asking me to prove a negative now?

No weapon found, no gunman seen, no damage from a bullet fired from the knoll. The alleged gunman, his associates, and their vehicle were all gone before the assassination.

That should be good enough for most people. Especially since the positive is merely a suspicion of suspicious activity, with no actual suspicious activity associated with it.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Asking me to prove a negative?

No weapon found, no gunman seen, no damage from a bullet fired from the knoll.

That should be good enough for most people.

Not for you, right?

Hank

It would appear Robert doesn't understand the burden of proof is on him to validate witnesses with material/physical/what ever term you like/ actual evidence, and it is not our place to believe assertions until proven otherwise.

But then he has now admitted he is not here to persuade us, but wants to examine facts. I suppose it could be argued that examinig facts does not require discussion, and a discussion where you don't intend to convince others of your view nor accept the possibility of your own views being found flawed is not a discussion but a dictation.

 

[HSienzant]

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

By that definition, I am too an expert on the supposed anomalies in the back yard photos. I think I have demonstated a pretty damn good knowledge of the assassination, the criticisms, and the failures of those criticisms to hit home.

I am not, however, a photographic expert, and neither is White.

If you accept his testimony, you should accept mine.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

Why? He has been shown to be entirely lacking the knowledge and skill required to be an expert. This is as laughable as it would be for you to claim to have a professional medical opinion. You seem to have mistaken White making his claims as proof of his expertise. They are not. They are unsupported by anything that remotely resembles actual knowledge in the field he wants to discuss.

I could bombard you with equally bombastic claims about Aztec ruins. I could spiel. Of all kinds of facts and deductions. I can claim expertise through my research. But it will be worth exactly bumpkis.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I have conducted by own experiment in attempting to prove or disprove the 9 o'clock shadow of the rifle in backyard photo 133B, where the rifle is at 11 o'clock and proven the shadow to be a fraud.

LOL. Robert, what times are it?


Maybe you could ask your pee-stained janitor friend. He looks like a doofus who should be taken seriously.

Jack Joke "What is this photogrammetry of which you speak?" White has conducted numerous experiments on the backyard photo anomalies

FTFY

 

[JayUtah]

Then in the area of anomalies in the Oswald backyard photos, Jack White is indeed an expert.

No. I am an engineer, trained in many types of photo analysis (for forensic engineering purposes) and published in peer-reviewed journals as such. I have debated Jack White on his "analysis" of the Apollo space mission photos. White has absolutely no stature whatsoever in the field of photographic analysis; he is seen as a conspiracy-theory crackpot only. He has demonstrated time and again almost complete ignorance not only of the elementary principles of photographic analysis and interpretation, but a below-average aptitude for spatial reasoning.

Saying he is an "expert in the anomalies" seems to be a polite way of saying he's a conspiracy theorist. Jack White is most decidedly not an image analysis expert. Not even close. Here is an example from my web site http://www.clavius.org/bigmt.html showing just how inept White is.

Further I don't much care for his honesty. I was hired by Ten Worlds Productions to appear on a pilot for a series they were producing for the History Channel. I was asked to debunk some photo analysis and scientific claims made by others. I learned that White was claiming he was a "consultant" to this same program, and that he had worked with the producer "for several days." The producer is a long-time friend from my hometown, so I called to check up on that claim. John, the producer, said no, he'd only interviewed White for an hour or two, and then only to collect White's conspiracy claims on video. Clearly White is comfortable overstating his case and misleading his readers for his own personal aggrandizement. This is not someone I trust to get to the bottom of some claim.